laser use in astronomy? The NANNY-STATE has you covered!!

On Friday, 29 September 2017 10:00:08 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:44:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

According to Transport Canada regulations, any person planning to project a laser into navigable airspace must get permission from the department.

You know why this happens? Because lasers are inexpensive and many
output far more than they are legally allowed to. And idiots buy these
cheap lasers and point them at airplanes, police helicopters, drivers,
and otherwise create unsafe situations. And so we end up with more
regulations, which impact those of us who don't create problems at
all.

Regulations like this are a consequence of too many idiots.

As is everything the nanny-state deems too important to just leave alone.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 01:33:09 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 29 September 2017 10:00:08 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:44:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

According to Transport Canada regulations, any person planning to project a laser into navigable airspace must get permission from the department.

You know why this happens? Because lasers are inexpensive and many
output far more than they are legally allowed to. And idiots buy these
cheap lasers and point them at airplanes, police helicopters, drivers,
and otherwise create unsafe situations. And so we end up with more
regulations, which impact those of us who don't create problems at
all.

Regulations like this are a consequence of too many idiots.

As is everything the nanny-state deems too important to just leave alone.

It is appropriate for our state to create regulations when misuse by
the ignorant presents risks to all.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:27:42 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

On Friday, 29 September 2017 16:00:08 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Regulations like this are a consequence of too many idiots.

Idiots have always vastly outnumbered the sensible.

And it's getting worse, at least in the U.S. I'm doubtful the country
will recover.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

It may not be quite as simple as that, but an increase in the average
intelligence level of the human race cannot come too soon.

We do not need to be more intelligent. We need to be less tribal, less
aggressive, egalitarian. We need to eliminate certain cognitive
biases. We will not survive much longer, at least with any sort of
complex civilization, if we can't achieve this.

I had a professor in college, Roger Sperry, who believed that we must
find ways to alter our brains. At the time there was no plausible way
to do this. Now we are near that point. But I doubt we have the wisdom
to make the necessary changes.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:51:18 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Surely it is rational to purchase articles where they are sold most cheaply,
among those places that can be inexpensively reached by suitable transportation.

It isn't irrational. But neither is it particularly rational to
elevate these things above other values.

On Saturday, 30 September 2017 14:32:41 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Idiots have always vastly outnumbered the sensible.

And it's getting worse, at least in the U.S. I'm doubtful the country
will recover.

Whiner von Dump, the famous Gold Pro and glittering author, returning from four days play on his private gold course, lambasts the desperate Mayor of Puerto Rico for demanding action after the devastating hurricane?

Nope: Not a hope in hell while this absentee Chump is in charge!

Price has gone leaving the US 1 million deeper in debt.
Only the latest crony of the Gold Pro to provide proof of Gold Pro's raving hypocrisy.
Now people are asking why America needs a Health Secretary when it doesn't even have a recognizable public health service!
And, why America even needs a President when he's hardly ever there!

America RIP. Retire Incumbent President!
Do it now before he breaks more than empty promises!! ;-)

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 6:36:27 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

We do not need to be more intelligent. We need to be less tribal, less
aggressive, egalitarian. We need to eliminate certain cognitive
biases.

Since we are so tribal, of course, getting the other guy to also modify his
people to be more peaceful is going to be the trick. (Who will bell the
cat.)

Genetically modifying some members of our tribe so that they are smarter,
and can cook up a faster-than-light drive, so that we can build ships to
move out to some planet orbiting a star in a very distant galaxy, where we
could neither be followed... nor found, if eventually our feat was
duplicated... is at least a scheme for survival that has an actual chance of
working.

John Savard

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 6:36:27 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

It may not be quite as simple as that, but an increase in the average
intelligence level of the human race cannot come too soon.

We do not need to be more intelligent. We need to be less tribal, less
aggressive, egalitarian.

....also, observing the behavior of more intelligent people, being less
tribal and less aggressive may well be side effects of increased
intelligence. But the latter is an easier sell.

John Savard

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 00:45:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 1:26:50 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So what does Populism really stand for? Didn't Populism have a
bad
name already long before Trump?

You do have a valid point.

But in my view, there is indeed a legitimate political orientation
associated
with the phenomenon of Populism.

A significant segment of the electorate is, on the one hand,
socially
conservative, and, on the other hand, seeks economic policies which
favor the
working class rather than big business.

Neither a conservative party or a liberal party will do what these
voters want
in both policy areas. A Populist party would. And isn't democracy
about the
people governing the country, instead of political parties getting
to advance
their own agendas?

John Savard

If you are a Kemalist (i.e. a follower of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the
first leader of the Turkish Republic) you would be a populist since
Populism is one of the "six pillars" of Kemalism (the other five
pillars are republicanism, nationalism, statism, reformist,
secularism). The kemalist variety of Populism is to "do what people
wants" or, to be more specific, to do what's best for the general
population. And in that respect every government are populist, or
claim to be so - I don't think you can find one single government
which admits they're not doing what's best for their respective
populations...

In rhe western world, "populist" rather means being an opportunist
and giving popular promises you cannot live up to, in the hope of
getting more votes. Such as promising better, cheaper and more
extensive social services, and lower taxes.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 03:42:37 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 6:36:27 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

We do not need to be more intelligent. We need to be less tribal, less
aggressive, egalitarian. We need to eliminate certain cognitive
biases.

Since we are so tribal, of course, getting the other guy to also modify his
people to be more peaceful is going to be the trick. (Who will bell the
cat.)

I expect if it gets done, somebody will find a way to do it that
doesn't involve asking permission.

Genetically modifying some members of our tribe so that they are smarter,
and can cook up a faster-than-light drive, so that we can build ships to
move out to some planet orbiting a star in a very distant galaxy, where we
could neither be followed... nor found, if eventually our feat was
duplicated... is at least a scheme for survival that has an actual chance of
working.

Yeah, but I think that long before we understand how to make such
modifications, we'll be creating and utilizing machine intelligence
far beyond our own.